Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> "Pete C." wrote:
> >Omelet wrote:
> >> Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >> >sandi wrote:
> >> > >"Ed Pawlowski" wrote:
> >> > >> "Sky wrote:
> >> > >>>sandi wrote:
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>> That's smart shopping Not many folks know to do that!
> >> > >>>
> >> > >>>> I've gone in to Wal Mart, taken a pic then taken the
> >> > >>>> camera/cell pic
> >> > >>>> to Home Depot and they will match the price +10%. :-)
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Because it is not a very efficient way to save a few pennies.
> >> > >> It would have to be a very expensive item to justify the gas
> >> > >> to make the trip to another store.
> >> > >
> >> > >The local Walmart is about one block away (or less, just a
> >> > >guestimate) from Home Depot in a strip mall area.
> >> >
> >> > The Walmart I go to shares the parking lot with Lowes, the stores are
> >> > separted by about 500' of landscaping... but no one is going drive
> >> > from store to store hunting for a parking spot and wait on lines to
> >> > try and save 8¢ on a pack of AA cells... and if it's an expensive item
> >> > (like a vacuum cleaner) with a substantial price difference customer
> >> > service will phone over for a price check. Anyway, they have
> >> > employees whose job it is to constantly price shop other stores, they
> >> > all know each other store's prices and price appropriately. And
> >> > almost always the sale items are not identical; with AA batteries
> >> > Walmart sells twelve packs and Lowes's sells 24 packs, and usually
> >> > Walmart sells Energizer and Lowe's sells Duracell.
> >>
> >> Lowe's sells Energizers (made in China) for the same price as Wal-mart.
> >> I've checked. But Lowe's also sells the large multi-packs of generic
> >> Alkaline batteries from China that are 30% cheaper and work just as well
> >> (I've tested them in my EMS unit for pain control using the 9 volts) as
> >> Energizers which have always lasted longer than Duracells.
> >>
> >> You pay extra moola for name brands.
> >>
> >> Wal-mart is a slave to name brands and does not sell those.
> >>
> >> Lowe's does.
> >>
> >> The difference in a 30 pack box is a good $10.00. More than worth the
> >> walk across the parking lot.
> >>
> >> But then, ordering REALLY cheap is just a click away:
> >>
> >> <http://www.c heapbatteries.com/>
> >
> >Well, if the label is to be believed, my Duracells, the only battery
> >brand I buy, are still made in the U.S.
>
> My Duracells say Made in USA ... my few Energizers are marked Made in
> USA too... I find the Duracells last longer. However I have
> rechargeable Duracells and rechargeable Radio Shack brand that are
> made in China. I've never had luck with no-name batterys... like those
> that are suppplied with remote controls and "battery included" items,
> those never last very long. That cheapbatteries web site sells USA
> and China versions of the same brand but they are not cheaper than
> Lowe's. I also buy the 'coppertops' but occasionally they only have
> Energizer in the size I need... last time Lowes only had Energizer 9V
> and AAA size. I've noticed lately that there seems to be a switch
> from AA to AAA.... the new remotes from my cable company, my new
> wireless keyboard and mouse, and my new AC thermostat are all AAA now.
> I don't price shop batteries, I'e discovered Lowe's is the cheapest,
> but if I happen to be at Walmart they sometimes have batteries on sale
> for a few pennies less... but I'm not going to drive from store to
> stare and wait on lines for a few pennies refund... I've long ago
> discovered that cheap is expensive.

Oddly, my experience is that those no-name OEM batteries that come with
remotes and stuff last quite a while.

Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:20:33 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
> > wrote:
>
>> "Jean B." > wrote
>>>>> This is why I don't shop at WalMart.
>>> Yes, the treatment of employees too...
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jean B.
>>
>> Yet people apply for jobs there every day. I only know one person working
>> there, a part timer. He has no complaints.
>
> I have three neighbors who work for Walmart, all love their job; one
> is a retired NYC detective, during the past five years he's been
> steadly promoted, he's now regional head of security at Walmart, one
> is an accountant, and one is a young person who works in their
> warehouse driving a fork lift. They all say that Walmart's pay and
> bennies are better than the same jobs at the competion, and all are
> very happy with how they are treated. My neighbor who's head of
> security says that those who are down on Walmart are those who have
> been dismissed for cause, have a family member who has been dismissed
> for cause, or don't shop Walmart because they were caught shop lifting
> so are legally barred from the premises. I don't know of any company
> that tolerates theft and/or druggies. Those who are most vociferous
> about bashing Walmart and ranting about how they never shop there you
> can bet your bippee that they did something illegal that prevents them
> from working/shopping there.
>
>
That's interesting. Thanks. As to that last... ?

--
Jean B.

On 11/24/2010 9:45 AM, Jean B. wrote:
> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:20:33 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> "Jean B." > wrote
>>>>>> This is why I don't shop at WalMart.
>>>> Yes, the treatment of employees too...
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jean B.
>>>
>>> Yet people apply for jobs there every day. I only know one person
>>> working there, a part timer. He has no complaints.
>>
>> I have three neighbors who work for Walmart, all love their job; one
>> is a retired NYC detective, during the past five years he's been
>> steadly promoted, he's now regional head of security at Walmart, one
>> is an accountant, and one is a young person who works in their
>> warehouse driving a fork lift. They all say that Walmart's pay and
>> bennies are better than the same jobs at the competion, and all are
>> very happy with how they are treated. My neighbor who's head of
>> security says that those who are down on Walmart are those who have
>> been dismissed for cause, have a family member who has been dismissed
>> for cause, or don't shop Walmart because they were caught shop lifting
>> so are legally barred from the premises. I don't know of any company
>> that tolerates theft and/or druggies. Those who are most vociferous
>> about bashing Walmart and ranting about how they never shop there you
>> can bet your bippee that they did something illegal that prevents them
>> from working/shopping there.
>>
>>
> That's interesting. Thanks. As to that last... ?
>

What nonsense. If someone is critical of walmart because say they pay no
property taxes. In my state they get KOZ status, that means aside from
the taxpayers acquiring and developing properties, building highway
interchanges and installing traffic signals for them they don't pay
taxes for nine years. When the nine years are up they simply move across
the street.

Or maybe because they give printed instructions to employees on how to
obtain their "benefits" since their wages put a good portion of their
employees in the official poverty class (>50% of the folks on public
assistance in my state are walmart employees) Or maybe because walmart's
strategy to destroy US manufacturing to insure their margins actually
isn't a good thing now that it has played out and many jobs are gone
forever? Obama can't keep picking folks pockets to "stimulate" the
economy forever instead of having real jobs.

And a retired NYC cop says so it must be true? He certainly is
representative of a typical walmart employee... He likely retired at 50
and his pension is probably $80,000 and his full medical etc is also
covered by the NYC taxpayers. So any money he picks up on the side is a
good thing.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:45:11 -0500, "Jean B." > wrote:

> As to that last... ?

He's a conspiracy theorist and doesn't believe people can make up
their minds independently based on facts.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:49:04 -0500, George >
wrote:

> Obama can't keep picking folks pockets to "stimulate" the
> economy forever instead of having real jobs.

Don't blame Obama for this mess. It was in the pipeline long before
he took office and will still be here for our grandchildren to deal
with.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:49:04 -0500, George >
wrote:

>On 11/24/2010 9:45 AM, Jean B. wrote:
>> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:20:33 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Jean B." > wrote
>>>>>>> This is why I don't shop at WalMart.
>>>>> Yes, the treatment of employees too...
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jean B.
>>>>
>>>> Yet people apply for jobs there every day. I only know one person
>>>> working there, a part timer. He has no complaints.
>>>
>>> I have three neighbors who work for Walmart, all love their job; one
>>> is a retired NYC detective, during the past five years he's been
>>> steadly promoted, he's now regional head of security at Walmart, one
>>> is an accountant, and one is a young person who works in their
>>> warehouse driving a fork lift. They all say that Walmart's pay and
>>> bennies are better than the same jobs at the competion, and all are
>>> very happy with how they are treated. My neighbor who's head of
>>> security says that those who are down on Walmart are those who have
>>> been dismissed for cause, have a family member who has been dismissed
>>> for cause, or don't shop Walmart because they were caught shop lifting
>>> so are legally barred from the premises. I don't know of any company
>>> that tolerates theft and/or druggies. Those who are most vociferous
>>> about bashing Walmart and ranting about how they never shop there you
>>> can bet your bippee that they did something illegal that prevents them
>>> from working/shopping there.
>>>
>>>
>> That's interesting. Thanks. As to that last... ?
>>
>
>What nonsense. If someone is critical of walmart because say they pay no
>property taxes. In my state they get KOZ status, that means aside from
>the taxpayers acquiring and developing properties, building highway
>interchanges and installing traffic signals for them they don't pay
>taxes for nine years. When the nine years are up they simply move across
>the street.

Any company that relocates gets the same tax break, and stocking
shelves ain't a real job anywhere, idiot.

"Goomba" > wrote in message
...
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> "Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Sky" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 11/22/2010 10:19 PM, sandi wrote:
>>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>> That's smart shopping Not many folks know to do that!
>>>>
>>>> Sky
>>>>
>>>>> I've gone in to Wal Mart, taken a pic then taken the camera/cell
>>>>> pic
>>>>> to Home Depot and they will match the price +10%. :-)
>>>
>>> Because it is not a very efficient way to save a few pennies. It would
>>> have to be a very expensive item to justify the gas to make the trip to
>>> another store.
>> It depends, I suppose, on how far apart the stores are. Where I live
>> Lowe's and Wal*Mart are on the same block. If I'm going to drive to one
>> it won't cost much (if anything) to drive to the other. Just make sure
>> it's something they both carry
>>
>> Jill
>
> One needs to factor in the cost of their time also to do all this
> traipsing about. My time is more valuable than just knowing I saved a dime
> and trouble to drive back and forth between stores.

This is why I mentioned Lowes and WalMart are on the same block. If I'm
going to drive all the way out there, I may as well check two stores while
I'm at it. But see, I check online first, for prices and product
availability.

Jill

"Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:08:35 -0500, "jmcquown" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>> "Sky" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 11/22/2010 10:19 PM, sandi wrote:
>>>> (snip)
>>>>
>>>> That's smart shopping Not many folks know to do that!
>>>>
>>>> Sky
>>>>
>>>>> I've gone in to Wal Mart, taken a pic then taken the camera/cell
>>>>> pic
>>>>> to Home Depot and they will match the price +10%. :-)
>>>
>>> Because it is not a very efficient way to save a few pennies. It would
>>> have to be a very expensive item to justify the gas to make the trip to
>>> another store.
>>It depends, I suppose, on how far apart the stores are. Where I live
>>Lowe's
>>and Wal*Mart are on the same block. If I'm going to drive to one it won't
>>cost much (if anything) to drive to the other. Just make sure it's
>>something they both carry
>>
>>Jill
>
> When did you last look at the price of gas... it costs more in fuel
> just to start your automobile than the small change you may receive...
> not to mention your time and effort. Like those pinheads who drive
> ten miles out of their way and then the same ten miles all the way
> back just to buy gas for 2¢ less a gallon. Anyone all that interested
> in the small price difference for an item between stores should have
> before ever leaving home checked on line. Nine times out of ten one
> will find those items on line with free shipping.


I drive a very fuel-efficient car. I'm not worried about gas prices...
anyone in their right mind knows it will never be 39 cents a gallon again.
And I don't live on the left coast, or NYC, where *everything* costs more

Jill

On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:16:29 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:13:24 -0500, Goomba wrote:
>
>> If someone goes out in public dressed as they are on that "People of
>> Walmart" website, they're open game in my opinion. They have no problem
>> being observed by the public in person so these photos are just more
>> observers.
>
> Picture this:
>
> Goomba pops into <fill in the supermarket of choice here> in her RN's
> uniform on her way home from a very stressful and busy shift at the
> ER/hospital/clinic. She is too exhausted/stressed to change into her
> 'civvies' before heading home - but, hey, her spouse/children/grand
> children at home need some <whatever>! Anyway, some 'observer' takes a
> picture of her and puts it up on a website for all to gawp at and
> ridicule...
>
> Guess that's just the way it is, eh?

but presumably her scrubs don't have parts of her body poking out.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:51:23 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 16:25:07 -0500, Goomba wrote:
>
>> ChattyCathy wrote:
>>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:13:24 -0500, Goomba wrote:
>>>
>>>> If someone goes out in public dressed as they are on that "People of
>>>> Walmart" website, they're open game in my opinion. They have no
>>>> problem being observed by the public in person so these photos are
>>>> just more observers.
>>>
>>> Picture this:
>>>
>>> Goomba pops into <fill in the supermarket of choice here> in her RN's
>>> uniform on her way home from a very stressful and busy shift at the
>>> ER/hospital/clinic. She is too exhausted/stressed to change into her
>>> 'civvies' before heading home - but, hey, her spouse/children/grand
>>> children at home need some <whatever>! Anyway, some 'observer' takes a
>>> picture of her and puts it up on a website for all to gawp at and
>>> ridicule...
>>>
>>> Guess that's just the way it is, eh?
>>>
>> <shrug> Yeah..works for me.
>
> So it's OK for you to go shopping in your working attire but not for
> anyone else? How... um, broad-minded.
>
>> Of course I don't go out in the same freakazoid clothes (or lack
>> thereof) that the people on the FOWM website seem to favor.
>
> Freakazoid clothes? Is that how your Mom described your jeans and/or
> platform shoes when you where a teenager? OMG, please don't tell me what
> she said about your 'big hair' <snork>

c.c., have you actually looked at *people of walmart*? that ain't 'working
attire' unless you're a very fat hooker.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:51:58 -0800, sf wrote:

> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:09:13 -0500, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 18:51:15 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:27:23 -0600, Pete C. wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, in the U.S. at least, taking people's picture in a public setting
>>>> does not require their permission.
>>>
>>> Same here. But most people assume their pictures won't be put up on a
>>> website so they can be the object of ridicule. Guess I'm one of the few
>>> that finds the POW website distasteful. So be it.
>>
>> i understand what you're saying - the people running the site are not
>> especially nice people.
>
> Do you know the web site operators personally? I don't. However I
> think they have a mean streak that they call humor.

that's what i mean.

>I also think most
> practical jokes are just plain viciousness masquerading as humor.
> "What, you can't take a joke?" Blame the victim. That's what all the
> bullies do.
>
>> but the photos are pretty goddamn funny.
>>
> I don't and Cathy doesn't either.

*de gustibus*.

your pal,
blake

On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 14:09:16 -0600, Pete C. wrote:

> Omelet wrote:
>>
>> In article >,
>> ChattyCathy > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 10:27:23 -0600, Pete C. wrote:
>>>
>>> > Well, in the U.S. at least, taking people's picture in a public setting
>>> > does not require their permission.
>>>
>>> Same here. But most people assume their pictures won't be put up on a
>>> website so they can be the object of ridicule. Guess I'm one of the few
>>> that finds the POW website distasteful. So be it.
>>
>> Not.
>>
>> I find it to be downright tasteless.
>
> A substantial percentage of the Wal-Creatures featured on the POW site
> dress the way they do because they desperately crave attention.

i don't think they dress differently to go to wal-mart or to get pix posted
on the net. it's just how they dress.

your pal,
blake

Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:05:31 -0600, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >jmcquown wrote:
> >>
> >> "Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:08:35 -0500, "jmcquown" >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >>>
> >> >>> "Sky" > wrote in message
> >> >>> ...
> >> >>>> On 11/22/2010 10:19 PM, sandi wrote:
> >> >>>> (snip)
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> That's smart shopping Not many folks know to do that!
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> Sky
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> I've gone in to Wal Mart, taken a pic then taken the camera/cell
> >> >>>>> pic
> >> >>>>> to Home Depot and they will match the price +10%. :-)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Because it is not a very efficient way to save a few pennies. It would
> >> >>> have to be a very expensive item to justify the gas to make the trip to
> >> >>> another store.
> >> >>It depends, I suppose, on how far apart the stores are. Where I live
> >> >>Lowe's
> >> >>and Wal*Mart are on the same block. If I'm going to drive to one it won't
> >> >>cost much (if anything) to drive to the other. Just make sure it's
> >> >>something they both carry
> >> >>
> >> >>Jill
> >> >
> >> > When did you last look at the price of gas... it costs more in fuel
> >> > just to start your automobile than the small change you may receive...
> >> > not to mention your time and effort. Like those pinheads who drive
> >> > ten miles out of their way and then the same ten miles all the way
> >> > back just to buy gas for 2¢ less a gallon. Anyone all that interested
> >> > in the small price difference for an item between stores should have
> >> > before ever leaving home checked on line. Nine times out of ten one
> >> > will find those items on line with free shipping.
> >>
> >> I drive a very fuel-efficient car. I'm not worried about gas prices...
> >> anyone in their right mind knows it will never be 39 cents a gallon again.
> >> And I don't live on the left coast, or NYC, where *everything* costs more
> >>
> >> Jill
> >
> >I drive a 9,000# diesel truck, but unlike a lot of folks I can actually
> >do math and determine that the 1 mile extra it takes for me to go to
> >Mal-Wart, Target, Sam's, Albertson's and Kroger all in the same trip
> >costs me $0.21 so it doesn't take much shopping savings to cover that
> >cost.
>
> That's funny... diesel is now like $3.40/gal... you can barely crank
> her over for 21¢.

$2.999 here today at my local Exxon station, and off brands are cheaper.
That $0.21/mile is based on the Exxon price too, I could go lower with
off brand fuel, but I don't care to put off brand fuel in a $60k truck
if I can help it.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 16:35:57 -0500, blake murphy wrote:


> c.c., have you actually looked at *people of walmart*?

I have. When it was first launched and everybody was 'busting a gut' over
it. Didn't think much of it back then so it's not saved in my bookmarks...

> that ain't 'working
> attire' unless you're a very fat hooker.

Please don't forget that's allegedly the oldest profession in the world,
so who are you or I to criticize their 'working attire'?

But no, seriously (as Bob P used to say) - you can't expect me to believe
that WalMart is the only public place in the USA that these ahem,
so-called "freakazoids" shop at and/or frequent?

What is it with the anti-WalMart clientele sentiment in general, anyway?
Is their hard-earned money pink instead of green, perhaps? And before you
mention it - they can't possibly *all* be on welfare.

Heh, rumor has it that the WalMart powers-that-be have been sniffing
around in our neck of the woods with an eye to 'starting up shop' over
here one of these fine years - so should I expect the 'dress code' of the
people who might choose to shop there to suddenly change?

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

"George" > wrote
>
> Or maybe because they give printed instructions to employees on how to
> obtain their "benefits" since their wages put a good portion of their
> employees in the official poverty class (>50% of the folks on public
> assistance in my state are walmart employees) Or maybe because walmart's
> strategy to destroy US manufacturing to insure their margins actually
> isn't a good thing now that it has played out and many jobs are gone
> forever? Obama can't keep picking folks pockets to "stimulate" the
> economy forever instead of having real jobs.

The wages are about the same as other stores pay. If you are going to bash
once store, be sure to bash all the others along with them.

Same with moving jobs overseas. WalMart may be the biggest importer, but
just look at the origin of similar products in Sears, Lowes, Best Buy,
Target or wherever.

We recently had an opportunity to supply WalMart with a product for next
summer. They told us the price they would pay, we told them "no thanks".
The volume was great, but with no profit, we won't touch it. There present
supplier is afraid to say no and is having financial problems. It is a
choice they are making.

Don't forget to put a portion of the blame on the US consumer that is
hunting that low, low, low price.

In article >,
"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote:


> We recently had an opportunity to supply WalMart with a product for next
> summer. They told us the price they would pay, we told them "no thanks".
> The volume was great, but with no profit, we won't touch it. There present
> supplier is afraid to say no and is having financial problems. It is a
> choice they are making.
>
> Don't forget to put a portion of the blame on the US consumer that is
> hunting that low, low, low price.

I just hope the US remembers the lessons that we didn't appear to learn
during the chip dumping days. The Japanese sold memory chips for
computers below cost, driving all the US companies out of the market.
Once they were gone, they raised the prices to make ridiculous profits.
The US chip makers had learned their lesson, so they didn't try to get
back in production, because they just would have been forced out again.
Of course, they all could have gotten together and worked out a strategy
between themselves, but that would have violated anti-trust laws here in
the US.

Getting low prices through competition in a free market is a really nice
theory, but anyone who thinks that China is competing in a free market
should do some hard thinking.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"Ed Pawlowski" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> "Goomba" > wrote
>> It used to be that generations ago nurses didn't wear their "uniform" >>
>> (whites) in public. Then again they also used to wear caps too...<shrug>
>>
>
> The hospital my wife recently spent a lot of time i>n has two nurses that
> > still wear white and caps.

I hate seeing chefs in the marketplace or in a supermarket wearing their
tunics. I never put mine on until I am in the kitchen, even though it's
hard to find a changing place at times. I suppose that nurses may have felt
the same restrictions about carrying in (or in their case carrying out as
well) things that are better left outside.

On 11/24/2010 11:46 AM, sf wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:49:04 -0500, >
> wrote:
>
>> Obama can't keep picking folks pockets to "stimulate" the
>> economy forever instead of having real jobs.
>
> Don't blame Obama for this mess. It was in the pipeline long before
> he took office and will still be here for our grandchildren to deal
> with.
>

Maybe read it again without oh oh someone is attacking Obama filter?.

On 11/25/2010 12:14 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
> "George" > wrote
>>
>> Or maybe because they give printed instructions to employees on how to
>> obtain their "benefits" since their wages put a good portion of their
>> employees in the official poverty class (>50% of the folks on public
>> assistance in my state are walmart employees) Or maybe because
>> walmart's strategy to destroy US manufacturing to insure their margins
>> actually isn't a good thing now that it has played out and many jobs
>> are gone forever? Obama can't keep picking folks pockets to
>> "stimulate" the economy forever instead of having real jobs.
>
> The wages are about the same as other stores pay. If you are going to
> bash once store, be sure to bash all the others along with them.
>

Actually they aren't. And Walmart is well known for an extreme overuse
of keeping people at part time status.

> Same with moving jobs overseas. WalMart may be the biggest importer, but
> just look at the origin of similar products in Sears, Lowes, Best Buy,
> Target or wherever.

Sure, but Walmart was the one that really made it the acceptable thing
to do.

>
> We recently had an opportunity to supply WalMart with a product for next
> summer. They told us the price they would pay, we told them "no thanks".
> The volume was great, but with no profit, we won't touch it. There
> present supplier is afraid to say no and is having financial problems.
> It is a choice they are making.
>
But isn't that pretty simplistic on your part to amuse it is the same
for all other businesses since whatever it is you do can't possibly
represent the situations of other businesses?

> Don't forget to put a portion of the blame on the US consumer that is
> hunting that low, low, low price.

Absolutely, many US consumers didn't connect the dots.

On 11/24/2010 1:02 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:49:04 -0500, >
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/24/2010 9:45 AM, Jean B. wrote:
>>> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 23:20:33 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Jean > wrote
>>>>>>>> This is why I don't shop at WalMart.
>>>>>> Yes, the treatment of employees too...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jean B.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yet people apply for jobs there every day. I only know one person
>>>>> working there, a part timer. He has no complaints.
>>>>
>>>> I have three neighbors who work for Walmart, all love their job; one
>>>> is a retired NYC detective, during the past five years he's been
>>>> steadly promoted, he's now regional head of security at Walmart, one
>>>> is an accountant, and one is a young person who works in their
>>>> warehouse driving a fork lift. They all say that Walmart's pay and
>>>> bennies are better than the same jobs at the competion, and all are
>>>> very happy with how they are treated. My neighbor who's head of
>>>> security says that those who are down on Walmart are those who have
>>>> been dismissed for cause, have a family member who has been dismissed
>>>> for cause, or don't shop Walmart because they were caught shop lifting
>>>> so are legally barred from the premises. I don't know of any company
>>>> that tolerates theft and/or druggies. Those who are most vociferous
>>>> about bashing Walmart and ranting about how they never shop there you
>>>> can bet your bippee that they did something illegal that prevents them
>>>> from working/shopping there.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That's interesting. Thanks. As to that last... ?
>>>
>>
>> What nonsense. If someone is critical of walmart because say they pay no
>> property taxes. In my state they get KOZ status, that means aside from
>> the taxpayers acquiring and developing properties, building highway
>> interchanges and installing traffic signals for them they don't pay
>> taxes for nine years. When the nine years are up they simply move across
>> the street.
>
> Any company that relocates gets the same tax break, and stocking
> shelves ain't a real job anywhere, idiot.

Actually no. Walmart is the only one who plays the nine years is up time
to move across the street to restart the tax exemption game. Sometimes
it is good to get out instead of sitting home thinking you know everything..

And since stocking shelves isn't a real job please describe very
carefully what folks who hold those jobs might do as an alternative. I
know you don't go out much so you don't see all of the shuttered
industrial and commercial properties where those folks might have gone
for a job in the past and you are pretty much frozen in the past maybe
25 years ago but give it a shot anyway.

On 11/25/2010 12:44 AM, Dan Abel wrote:
> In >,
> "Ed > wrote:
>
>
>> We recently had an opportunity to supply WalMart with a product for next
>> summer. They told us the price they would pay, we told them "no thanks".
>> The volume was great, but with no profit, we won't touch it. There present
>> supplier is afraid to say no and is having financial problems. It is a
>> choice they are making.
>>
>> Don't forget to put a portion of the blame on the US consumer that is
>> hunting that low, low, low price.
>
> I just hope the US remembers the lessons that we didn't appear to learn
> during the chip dumping days. The Japanese sold memory chips for
> computers below cost, driving all the US companies out of the market.
> Once they were gone, they raised the prices to make ridiculous profits.
> The US chip makers had learned their lesson, so they didn't try to get
> back in production, because they just would have been forced out again.
> Of course, they all could have gotten together and worked out a strategy
> between themselves, but that would have violated anti-trust laws here in
> the US.
>
> Getting low prices through competition in a free market is a really nice
> theory, but anyone who thinks that China is competing in a free market
> should do some hard thinking.
>

Walmart is just a stepping stone to Star*Mart. Lots of folks who are
watching dancing with the stars and shopping at walmart don't realize
what a force China has become with our help.

On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:57:31 -0600, "Pete C." >
wrote:

>
>Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:05:31 -0600, "Pete C." >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >jmcquown wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:08:35 -0500, "jmcquown" >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >>"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> "Sky" > wrote in message
>> >> >>> ...
>> >> >>>> On 11/22/2010 10:19 PM, sandi wrote:
>> >> >>>> (snip)
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> That's smart shopping Not many folks know to do that!
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Sky
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> I've gone in to Wal Mart, taken a pic then taken the camera/cell
>> >> >>>>> pic
>> >> >>>>> to Home Depot and they will match the price +10%. :-)
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> Because it is not a very efficient way to save a few pennies. It would
>> >> >>> have to be a very expensive item to justify the gas to make the trip to
>> >> >>> another store.
>> >> >>It depends, I suppose, on how far apart the stores are. Where I live
>> >> >>Lowe's
>> >> >>and Wal*Mart are on the same block. If I'm going to drive to one it won't
>> >> >>cost much (if anything) to drive to the other. Just make sure it's
>> >> >>something they both carry
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Jill
>> >> >
>> >> > When did you last look at the price of gas... it costs more in fuel
>> >> > just to start your automobile than the small change you may receive...
>> >> > not to mention your time and effort. Like those pinheads who drive
>> >> > ten miles out of their way and then the same ten miles all the way
>> >> > back just to buy gas for 2¢ less a gallon. Anyone all that interested
>> >> > in the small price difference for an item between stores should have
>> >> > before ever leaving home checked on line. Nine times out of ten one
>> >> > will find those items on line with free shipping.
>> >>
>> >> I drive a very fuel-efficient car. I'm not worried about gas prices...
>> >> anyone in their right mind knows it will never be 39 cents a gallon again.
>> >> And I don't live on the left coast, or NYC, where *everything* costs more
>> >>
>> >> Jill
>> >
>> >I drive a 9,000# diesel truck, but unlike a lot of folks I can actually
>> >do math and determine that the 1 mile extra it takes for me to go to
>> >Mal-Wart, Target, Sam's, Albertson's and Kroger all in the same trip
>> >costs me $0.21 so it doesn't take much shopping savings to cover that
>> >cost.
>>
>> That's funny... diesel is now like $3.40/gal... you can barely crank
>> her over for 21¢.
>
>$2.999 here today at my local Exxon station, and off brands are cheaper.
>That $0.21/mile is based on the Exxon price too, I could go lower with
>off brand fuel, but I don't care to put off brand fuel in a $60k truck
>if I can help it.

Both my tractors are diesel... the larger (43 HP) uses at least 30¢
worth to start and warm up enough to drive... during winter even more.
It's also not wise to turn off a diesel until it's idled for a couple
of minutes, that's why truckers don't turn off their rigs during pit
stops. Diesels don't last long with a lot of short trips especially
with a lot of turning the motor on and off. There is no way you can
store hop with your beast for only 21¢.

On 11/25/2010 9:09 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:57:31 -0600, "Pete >
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:05:31 -0600, "Pete >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Brooklyn1"<Gravesend1> wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:08:35 -0500, >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Ed > wrote in message
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> On 11/22/2010 10:19 PM, sandi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's smart shopping Not many folks know to do that!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sky
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I've gone in to Wal Mart, taken a pic then taken the camera/cell
>>>>>>>>>> pic
>>>>>>>>>> to Home Depot and they will match the price +10%. :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because it is not a very efficient way to save a few pennies. It would
>>>>>>>> have to be a very expensive item to justify the gas to make the trip to
>>>>>>>> another store.
>>>>>>> It depends, I suppose, on how far apart the stores are. Where I live
>>>>>>> Lowe's
>>>>>>> and Wal*Mart are on the same block. If I'm going to drive to one it won't
>>>>>>> cost much (if anything) to drive to the other. Just make sure it's
>>>>>>> something they both carry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jill
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When did you last look at the price of gas... it costs more in fuel
>>>>>> just to start your automobile than the small change you may receive...
>>>>>> not to mention your time and effort. Like those pinheads who drive
>>>>>> ten miles out of their way and then the same ten miles all the way
>>>>>> back just to buy gas for 2¢ less a gallon. Anyone all that interested
>>>>>> in the small price difference for an item between stores should have
>>>>>> before ever leaving home checked on line. Nine times out of ten one
>>>>>> will find those items on line with free shipping.
>>>>>
>>>>> I drive a very fuel-efficient car. I'm not worried about gas prices...
>>>>> anyone in their right mind knows it will never be 39 cents a gallon again.
>>>>> And I don't live on the left coast, or NYC, where *everything* costs more
>>>>>
>>>>> Jill
>>>>
>>>> I drive a 9,000# diesel truck, but unlike a lot of folks I can actually
>>>> do math and determine that the 1 mile extra it takes for me to go to
>>>> Mal-Wart, Target, Sam's, Albertson's and Kroger all in the same trip
>>>> costs me $0.21 so it doesn't take much shopping savings to cover that
>>>> cost.
>>>
>>> That's funny... diesel is now like $3.40/gal... you can barely crank
>>> her over for 21¢.
>>
>> $2.999 here today at my local Exxon station, and off brands are cheaper.
>> That $0.21/mile is based on the Exxon price too, I could go lower with
>> off brand fuel, but I don't care to put off brand fuel in a $60k truck
>> if I can help it.
>
> Both my tractors are diesel... the larger (43 HP) uses at least 30¢
> worth to start and warm up enough to drive... during winter even more.
> It's also not wise to turn off a diesel until it's idled for a couple
> of minutes, that's why truckers don't turn off their rigs during pit
> stops. Diesels don't last long with a lot of short trips especially
> with a lot of turning the motor on and off. There is no way you can
> store hop with your beast for only 21¢.

You really are totally stuck in the past.

Truckers didn't turn off trucks because of old wives tale beliefs. There
are few legitimate reasons to idle a diesel.

Maybe you have heard of two large package delivery companies named FedX
and UPS? They operate more than a few diesel powered delivery trucks and
the official policy of both is that drivers must turn off the engines as
soon as the vehicle is stopped. A typical route truck driver likely does
say 10 deliveries/hour so that is at least 80 stop/start
cycles/truck/day with no ill effects over hundreds (likely more)) of
millions of fleet operational miles (maybe you should give them a call
to let them know what they are doing wrong)

Then not to mention many states have banned idling diesels. Your state
did it 8 years ago:

http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/diesel.pdf

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 05:01:30 +0200, ChattyCathy
> wrote:

>On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 16:35:57 -0500, blake murphy wrote:
>
>
>> c.c., have you actually looked at *people of walmart*?
>
>I have. When it was first launched and everybody was 'busting a gut' over
>it. Didn't think much of it back then so it's not saved in my bookmarks...
>
>> that ain't 'working
>> attire' unless you're a very fat hooker.
>
>Please don't forget that's allegedly the oldest profession in the world,
>so who are you or I to criticize their 'working attire'?
>
>But no, seriously (as Bob P used to say) - you can't expect me to believe
>that WalMart is the only public place in the USA that these ahem,
>so-called "freakazoids" shop at and/or frequent?
>
>What is it with the anti-WalMart clientele sentiment in general, anyway?
>Is their hard-earned money pink instead of green, perhaps? And before you
>mention it - they can't possibly *all* be on welfare.
>
>Heh, rumor has it that the WalMart powers-that-be have been sniffing
>around in our neck of the woods with an eye to 'starting up shop' over
>here one of these fine years - so should I expect the 'dress code' of the
>people who might choose to shop there to suddenly change?

In the US it's more usual for the every day shoppers on the
entitlement-dole to dress in far finer finery and be more costly
coifed than those hard working folks who receive no financial aid...
often the parasites arrive in much nicer vehicles too.

"George" > wrote
>> The wages are about the same as other stores pay. If you are going to
>> bash once store, be sure to bash all the others along with them.
>>
>
> Actually they aren't. And Walmart is well known for an extreme overuse of
> keeping people at part time status.

Overuse? Do you have statistics on that? My guess it is hearsay. The part
time status thing has been used by retailers since I first stated working in
high school days in the early 60's. Nothing new there and I never heard of
Wal Mart back then. Some manufactureres used part time crews for the same
reason, no benefits or overtime.


>
>> Same with moving jobs overseas. WalMart may be the biggest importer, but
>> just look at the origin of similar products in Sears, Lowes, Best Buy,
>> Target or wherever.
>
> Sure, but Walmart was the one that really made it the acceptable thing to
> do.

Your opinion or do you have backup on that claim? We started importing
cheap junk from Japan in the 1950's and K-Mart and ilk were loaded with it.
Japan eventually became the major supplier of cameras, electronics, and we
flocked to the store to by Sony TVs. Who started that movement? Wal Mart
started in 1962 and Sam was not such a big importer. Go to the nearest Best
Buy and count he US made products.

>
>>
>> We recently had an opportunity to supply WalMart with a product for next
>> summer. They told us the price they would pay, we told them "no thanks".
>> The volume was great, but with no profit, we won't touch it. There
>> present supplier is afraid to say no and is having financial problems.
>> It is a choice they are making.
>>
> But isn't that pretty simplistic on your part to amuse it is the same for
> all other businesses since whatever it is you do can't possibly represent
> the situations of other businesses?

No, but many are looking at the big volume and figure they can compete.
They want the big order. Google WalMart and Vlasic Pickles and then do Wal
Mart and Snapper Mower. Sometimes you just have to say no. My first
exposure to that type of practice was back in the 1970's when a competitor
went after all the high volume appliance related business at very low
prices. They were very busy for a few years and then went bankrupt. At the
time, it was not WMart, but GE Appliances that did them in.

>
>> Don't forget to put a portion of the blame on the US consumer that is
>> hunting that low, low, low price.
>
> Absolutely, many US consumers didn't connect the dots.

That we agree on. They still don't connect them.

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 07:21:17 -0500, George >
wrote:

> Sure, but Walmart was the one that really made it the acceptable thing
> to do.

Did you hear on CNN that last quarter was the best ever (record
breaking profits) for business? They sound like farmers. "Oh poor
me" all summer long and then you hear their harvest was better than
ever.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 07:14:21 -0500, George >
wrote:

> On 11/24/2010 11:46 AM, sf wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:49:04 -0500, >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Obama can't keep picking folks pockets to "stimulate" the
> >> economy forever instead of having real jobs.
> >
> > Don't blame Obama for this mess. It was in the pipeline long before
> > he took office and will still be here for our grandchildren to deal
> > with.
> >
>
> Maybe read it again without oh oh someone is attacking Obama filter?.

Are you claiming what I said isn't true?

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Nov 25, 8:39*am, Brooklyn1 <Gravesend1> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 05:01:30 +0200, ChattyCathy
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 16:35:57 -0500, blake murphy wrote:
>
> >> c.c., have you actually looked at *people of walmart*?
>
> >I have. When it was first launched and everybody was 'busting a gut' over
> >it. Didn't think much of it back then so it's not saved in my bookmarks....
>
> >> that ain't 'working
> >> attire' unless you're a very fat hooker.
>
> >Please don't forget that's allegedly the oldest profession in the world,
> >so who are you or I to criticize their 'working attire'?
>
> >But no, seriously (as Bob P used to say) - you can't expect me to believe
> >that WalMart is the only public place in the USA that these ahem,
> >so-called "freakazoids" shop at and/or frequent?
>
> >What is it with the anti-WalMart clientele sentiment in general, anyway?
> >Is their hard-earned money pink instead of green, perhaps? And before you
> >mention it - they can't possibly *all* be on welfare.
>
> >Heh, rumor has it that the WalMart powers-that-be have been sniffing
> >around in our neck of the woods with an eye to 'starting up shop' over
> >here one of these fine years - so should I expect the 'dress code' of the
> >people who might choose to shop there to suddenly change?
>
> In the US it's more usual for the every day shoppers on the
> entitlement-dole to dress in far finer finery and be more costly
> coifed than those hard working folks who receive no financial aid...
> often the parasites arrive in much nicer vehicles too.

==
"often the parasites arrive in much nicer vehicles too." --

Of course you have REAL statistics to prove this.

Define "entitlement-dole"...I've not heard of this.
==

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 07:14:21 -0500, George >
wrote:

>On 11/24/2010 11:46 AM, sf wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:49:04 -0500, >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Obama can't keep picking folks pockets to "stimulate" the
>>> economy forever instead of having real jobs.
>>
>> Don't blame Obama for this mess. It was in the pipeline long before
>> he took office and will still be here for our grandchildren to deal
>> with.
>
>Maybe read it again without oh oh someone is attacking Obama filter?.

Lissen up simple for brains... Obomination did NOT inherit any mess,
he APPLIED for the position---every previous administration the
same... only that in-way-over-his-head spineless ghetto punk be
bitchin' n' moanin' 'stead of doing. With all those emporer's new
clothes fantasy plan red herrings instead of tackling the real issues
he'll go down in the history books as "The Great Distractor". You
should feel sorry for who "inherits" HIS mess... of course it'll be
all of us. Barach Hussein Obama is just another keyboard kook with no
marketable skills whatsoever... I wouldn't pay/trust him to stock
shelves at Walmart.

Wayne Boatwright wrote:
>
> On Wed 24 Nov 2010 07:57:31p, Pete C. told us...
>
> >
> > Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:05:31 -0600, "Pete C."
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >jmcquown wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:08:35 -0500, "jmcquown"
> >> >> > > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> "Sky" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>> ...
> >> >> >>>> On 11/22/2010 10:19 PM, sandi wrote: (snip)
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> That's smart shopping Not many folks know to do that!
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Sky
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>> I've gone in to Wal Mart, taken a pic then taken the
> >> >> >>>>> camera/cell pic to Home Depot and they will match the
> >> >> >>>>> price +10%. :-)
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Because it is not a very efficient way to save a few
> >> >> >>> pennies. It would have to be a very expensive item to
> >> >> >>> justify the gas to make the trip to another store.
> >> >> >>It depends, I suppose, on how far apart the stores are.
> >> >> >>Where I live Lowe's
> >> >> >>and Wal*Mart are on the same block. If I'm going to drive
> >> >> >>to one it won't cost much (if anything) to drive to the
> >> >> >>other. Just make sure it's something they both carry
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Jill
> >> >> >
> >> >> > When did you last look at the price of gas... it costs more
> >> >> > in fuel just to start your automobile than the small change
> >> >> > you may receive... not to mention your time and effort.
> >> >> > Like those pinheads who drive ten miles out of their way and
> >> >> > then the same ten miles all the way back just to buy gas for
> >> >> > 2¢ less a gallon. Anyone all that interested in the small
> >> >> > price difference for an item between stores should have
> >> >> > before ever leaving home checked on line. Nine times out of
> >> >> > ten one will find those items on line with free shipping.
> >> >>
> >> >> I drive a very fuel-efficient car. I'm not worried about gas
> >> >> prices... anyone in their right mind knows it will never be 39
> >> >> cents a gallon again. And I don't live on the left coast, or
> >> >> NYC, where *everything* costs more
> >> >>
> >> >> Jill
> >> >
> >> >I drive a 9,000# diesel truck, but unlike a lot of folks I can
> >> >actually do math and determine that the 1 mile extra it takes
> >> >for me to go to Mal-Wart, Target, Sam's, Albertson's and Kroger
> >> >all in the same trip costs me $0.21 so it doesn't take much
> >> >shopping savings to cover that cost.
> >>
> >> That's funny... diesel is now like $3.40/gal... you can barely
> >> crank her over for 21¢.
> >
> > $2.999 here today at my local Exxon station, and off brands are
> > cheaper. That $0.21/mile is based on the Exxon price too, I could
> > go lower with off brand fuel, but I don't care to put off brand
> > fuel in a $60k truck if I can help it.
> >
>
> If you can afford a $60k truck, I'm sure you can afford the more
> expensive gas to run it.
>
> For the past several weeks, including yesterday, I bought Diamond
> Shamrock at $2.69/gal.

Interestingly enough, that diesel truck costs less per mile than my
similarly sized gas truck, even with the notable difference between gas
and diesel prices. The diesel truck comes in at $0.21/mile vs.
$0.25/mile for the gas truck at last calculation. Since the fuel prices
just dropped a bit, I expect both went down.

Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:57:31 -0600, "Pete C." >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:05:31 -0600, "Pete C." >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >jmcquown wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "Brooklyn1" <Gravesend1> wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:08:35 -0500, "jmcquown" >
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
> >> >> ...
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> "Sky" > wrote in message
> >> >> >>> ...
> >> >> >>>> On 11/22/2010 10:19 PM, sandi wrote:
> >> >> >>>> (snip)
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> That's smart shopping Not many folks know to do that!
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> Sky
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>>> I've gone in to Wal Mart, taken a pic then taken the camera/cell
> >> >> >>>>> pic
> >> >> >>>>> to Home Depot and they will match the price +10%. :-)
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> Because it is not a very efficient way to save a few pennies. It would
> >> >> >>> have to be a very expensive item to justify the gas to make the trip to
> >> >> >>> another store.
> >> >> >>It depends, I suppose, on how far apart the stores are. Where I live
> >> >> >>Lowe's
> >> >> >>and Wal*Mart are on the same block. If I'm going to drive to one it won't
> >> >> >>cost much (if anything) to drive to the other. Just make sure it's
> >> >> >>something they both carry
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Jill
> >> >> >
> >> >> > When did you last look at the price of gas... it costs more in fuel
> >> >> > just to start your automobile than the small change you may receive...
> >> >> > not to mention your time and effort. Like those pinheads who drive
> >> >> > ten miles out of their way and then the same ten miles all the way
> >> >> > back just to buy gas for 2¢ less a gallon. Anyone all that interested
> >> >> > in the small price difference for an item between stores should have
> >> >> > before ever leaving home checked on line. Nine times out of ten one
> >> >> > will find those items on line with free shipping.
> >> >>
> >> >> I drive a very fuel-efficient car. I'm not worried about gas prices...
> >> >> anyone in their right mind knows it will never be 39 cents a gallon again.
> >> >> And I don't live on the left coast, or NYC, where *everything* costs more
> >> >>
> >> >> Jill
> >> >
> >> >I drive a 9,000# diesel truck, but unlike a lot of folks I can actually
> >> >do math and determine that the 1 mile extra it takes for me to go to
> >> >Mal-Wart, Target, Sam's, Albertson's and Kroger all in the same trip
> >> >costs me $0.21 so it doesn't take much shopping savings to cover that
> >> >cost.
> >>
> >> That's funny... diesel is now like $3.40/gal... you can barely crank
> >> her over for 21¢.
> >
> >$2.999 here today at my local Exxon station, and off brands are cheaper.
> >That $0.21/mile is based on the Exxon price too, I could go lower with
> >off brand fuel, but I don't care to put off brand fuel in a $60k truck
> >if I can help it.
>
> Both my tractors are diesel... the larger (43 HP) uses at least 30¢
> worth to start and warm up enough to drive... during winter even more.
> It's also not wise to turn off a diesel until it's idled for a couple
> of minutes, that's why truckers don't turn off their rigs during pit
> stops. Diesels don't last long with a lot of short trips especially
> with a lot of turning the motor on and off. There is no way you can
> store hop with your beast for only 21¢.

You pay a lot more in fuel taxes up there, indeed your letting your
politicos drill for oil up your posterior.

As for diesel engines, 99.999% probability your diesel tractors do not
have 26,000 PSI common rail electronic fuel injection or PCM controlled
variable geometry turbos, so the operating parameters of your tractor do
not translate to those of my truck.

George wrote:
>
> On 11/25/2010 9:09 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> > On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:57:31 -0600, "Pete >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:05:31 -0600, "Pete >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> jmcquown wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Brooklyn1"<Gravesend1> wrote in message
> >>>>> ...
> >>>>>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:08:35 -0500, >
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> "Ed > wrote in message
> >>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>> On 11/22/2010 10:19 PM, sandi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> (snip)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> That's smart shopping Not many folks know to do that!
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sky
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I've gone in to Wal Mart, taken a pic then taken the camera/cell
> >>>>>>>>>> pic
> >>>>>>>>>> to Home Depot and they will match the price +10%. :-)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Because it is not a very efficient way to save a few pennies. It would
> >>>>>>>> have to be a very expensive item to justify the gas to make the trip to
> >>>>>>>> another store.
> >>>>>>> It depends, I suppose, on how far apart the stores are. Where I live
> >>>>>>> Lowe's
> >>>>>>> and Wal*Mart are on the same block. If I'm going to drive to one it won't
> >>>>>>> cost much (if anything) to drive to the other. Just make sure it's
> >>>>>>> something they both carry
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Jill
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> When did you last look at the price of gas... it costs more in fuel
> >>>>>> just to start your automobile than the small change you may receive...
> >>>>>> not to mention your time and effort. Like those pinheads who drive
> >>>>>> ten miles out of their way and then the same ten miles all the way
> >>>>>> back just to buy gas for 2¢ less a gallon. Anyone all that interested
> >>>>>> in the small price difference for an item between stores should have
> >>>>>> before ever leaving home checked on line. Nine times out of ten one
> >>>>>> will find those items on line with free shipping.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I drive a very fuel-efficient car. I'm not worried about gas prices...
> >>>>> anyone in their right mind knows it will never be 39 cents a gallon again.
> >>>>> And I don't live on the left coast, or NYC, where *everything* costs more
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jill
> >>>>
> >>>> I drive a 9,000# diesel truck, but unlike a lot of folks I can actually
> >>>> do math and determine that the 1 mile extra it takes for me to go to
> >>>> Mal-Wart, Target, Sam's, Albertson's and Kroger all in the same trip
> >>>> costs me $0.21 so it doesn't take much shopping savings to cover that
> >>>> cost.
> >>>
> >>> That's funny... diesel is now like $3.40/gal... you can barely crank
> >>> her over for 21¢.
> >>
> >> $2.999 here today at my local Exxon station, and off brands are cheaper.
> >> That $0.21/mile is based on the Exxon price too, I could go lower with
> >> off brand fuel, but I don't care to put off brand fuel in a $60k truck
> >> if I can help it.
> >
> > Both my tractors are diesel... the larger (43 HP) uses at least 30¢
> > worth to start and warm up enough to drive... during winter even more.
> > It's also not wise to turn off a diesel until it's idled for a couple
> > of minutes, that's why truckers don't turn off their rigs during pit
> > stops. Diesels don't last long with a lot of short trips especially
> > with a lot of turning the motor on and off. There is no way you can
> > store hop with your beast for only 21¢.
>
> You really are totally stuck in the past.
>
> Truckers didn't turn off trucks because of old wives tale beliefs. There
> are few legitimate reasons to idle a diesel.
>
> Maybe you have heard of two large package delivery companies named FedX
> and UPS? They operate more than a few diesel powered delivery trucks and
> the official policy of both is that drivers must turn off the engines as
> soon as the vehicle is stopped. A typical route truck driver likely does
> say 10 deliveries/hour so that is at least 80 stop/start
> cycles/truck/day with no ill effects over hundreds (likely more)) of
> millions of fleet operational miles (maybe you should give them a call
> to let them know what they are doing wrong)
>
> Then not to mention many states have banned idling diesels. Your state
> did it 8 years ago:
>
> http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/diesel.pdf

Not to mention that current motor vehicle diesel engines are very
different from the motor vehicle diesels of just 5 years ago and
similarly different from tractor diesel engines.

Truckers idling diesels aren't from "old wives tales", that idling made
sense with the previous generation of diesel engines, but does not with
today's diesel engines.

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 10:05:54 -0500, George >
wrote:

>On 11/25/2010 9:09 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:57:31 -0600, "Pete >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:05:31 -0600, "Pete >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Brooklyn1"<Gravesend1> wrote in message
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:08:35 -0500, >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Ed > wrote in message
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/22/2010 10:19 PM, sandi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's smart shopping Not many folks know to do that!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sky
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I've gone in to Wal Mart, taken a pic then taken the camera/cell
>>>>>>>>>>> pic
>>>>>>>>>>> to Home Depot and they will match the price +10%. :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Because it is not a very efficient way to save a few pennies. It would
>>>>>>>>> have to be a very expensive item to justify the gas to make the trip to
>>>>>>>>> another store.
>>>>>>>> It depends, I suppose, on how far apart the stores are. Where I live
>>>>>>>> Lowe's
>>>>>>>> and Wal*Mart are on the same block. If I'm going to drive to one it won't
>>>>>>>> cost much (if anything) to drive to the other. Just make sure it's
>>>>>>>> something they both carry
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When did you last look at the price of gas... it costs more in fuel
>>>>>>> just to start your automobile than the small change you may receive...
>>>>>>> not to mention your time and effort. Like those pinheads who drive
>>>>>>> ten miles out of their way and then the same ten miles all the way
>>>>>>> back just to buy gas for 2¢ less a gallon. Anyone all that interested
>>>>>>> in the small price difference for an item between stores should have
>>>>>>> before ever leaving home checked on line. Nine times out of ten one
>>>>>>> will find those items on line with free shipping.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I drive a very fuel-efficient car. I'm not worried about gas prices...
>>>>>> anyone in their right mind knows it will never be 39 cents a gallon again.
>>>>>> And I don't live on the left coast, or NYC, where *everything* costs more
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jill
>>>>>
>>>>> I drive a 9,000# diesel truck, but unlike a lot of folks I can actually
>>>>> do math and determine that the 1 mile extra it takes for me to go to
>>>>> Mal-Wart, Target, Sam's, Albertson's and Kroger all in the same trip
>>>>> costs me $0.21 so it doesn't take much shopping savings to cover that
>>>>> cost.
>>>>
>>>> That's funny... diesel is now like $3.40/gal... you can barely crank
>>>> her over for 21¢.
>>>
>>> $2.999 here today at my local Exxon station, and off brands are cheaper.
>>> That $0.21/mile is based on the Exxon price too, I could go lower with
>>> off brand fuel, but I don't care to put off brand fuel in a $60k truck
>>> if I can help it.
>>
>> Both my tractors are diesel... the larger (43 HP) uses at least 30¢
>> worth to start and warm up enough to drive... during winter even more.
>> It's also not wise to turn off a diesel until it's idled for a couple
>> of minutes, that's why truckers don't turn off their rigs during pit
>> stops. Diesels don't last long with a lot of short trips especially
>> with a lot of turning the motor on and off. There is no way you can
>> store hop with your beast for only 21¢.
>
>You really are totally stuck in the past.
>
>Truckers didn't turn off trucks because of old wives tale beliefs. There
>are few legitimate reasons to idle a diesel.

The reason being discussed for idling rather than making a lot of
starts and stops and/or sudden stops is to save the engine from
fouling that can cause serious damage. Truckers also leave their rigs
idling because they are hauling a reefer... and to minimize that the
motor may not restart in cold weather. In cold weather I need to plug
in my oil pan heater, and add anti-gel to the fuel.

>Maybe you have heard of two large package delivery companies named FedX
>and UPS? They operate more than a few diesel powered delivery trucks and
>the official policy of both is that drivers must turn off the engines as
>soon as the vehicle is stopped. A typical route truck driver likely does
>say 10 deliveries/hour so that is at least 80 stop/start
>cycles/truck/day with no ill effects over hundreds (likely more)) of
>millions of fleet operational miles (maybe you should give them a call
>to let them know what they are doing wrong)

I get UPS, FedX, etal deliveries at least once every week... the
driver never shuts off his motor, and I know it's diesel because a few
times a year I meet them at the only diesel pump for 15 miles.

>Then not to mention many states have banned idling diesels. Your state
>did it 8 years ago:
>
>http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/diesel.pdf


Your reading comprehension sucks big time, I said " idled for a
*couple* of minutes". On my planet a couple means TWO. And you know
nothing about diesel engines proven by how you missed the entire point
about diesel mechanics and leapt all the way to pollution. In any
event drivers don't need two hours to eat lunch and visit the head.
And we are talking passenger and agri vehicles, not over the road
hauling... get with the program.

On 24 Nov 2010 21:40:22 GMT, Wayne Boatwright wrote:

> On Wed 24 Nov 2010 02:25:32p, blake murphy told us...
>
>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 20:16:29 +0200, ChattyCathy wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 12:13:24 -0500, Goomba wrote:
>>>
>>>> If someone goes out in public dressed as they are on that
>>>> "People of Walmart" website, they're open game in my opinion.
>>>> They have no problem being observed by the public in person so
>>>> these photos are just more observers.
>>>
>>> Picture this:
>>>
>>> Goomba pops into <fill in the supermarket of choice here> in her
>>> RN's uniform on her way home from a very stressful and busy shift
>>> at the ER/hospital/clinic. She is too exhausted/stressed to
>>> change into her 'civvies' before heading home - but, hey, her
>>> spouse/children/grand children at home need some <whatever>!
>>> Anyway, some 'observer' takes a picture of her and puts it up on
>>> a website for all to gawp at and ridicule...
>>>
>>> Guess that's just the way it is, eh?
>>
>> but presumably her scrubs don't have parts of her body poking out.
>>
>> your pal,
>> blake
>>
>
> For her sake, I do hope her head, arms, and legs do.

maybe i should have said 'oozing out.'

your pal,
blake

On 11/23/2010 6:13 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> I see tons of nurses in uniform in my neighborhood. There is a nursing
> home down the street. The only hospital is a block from that. Half the
> medical offices in the city are within a short distance of the hospital.
> A lot of nurses are out walking on their breaks/lunch, I suspect.

About 2 miles from where I live, there is a daycare center, my dentist
office and the vet's office, all of these people wear scrubs. When I see
someone wearing scrubs, I have no idea where they work.

Becca

Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
> On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 10:05:54 -0500, George >
> wrote:
>
> >On 11/25/2010 9:09 AM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:57:31 -0600, "Pete >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Brooklyn1 wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 20:05:31 -0600, "Pete >
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> jmcquown wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "Brooklyn1"<Gravesend1> wrote in message
> >>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>> On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 11:08:35 -0500, >
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Ed > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> > wrote in message
> >>>>>>>>> ...
> >>>>>>>>>> On 11/22/2010 10:19 PM, sandi wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> (snip)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> That's smart shopping Not many folks know to do that!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Sky
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> I've gone in to Wal Mart, taken a pic then taken the camera/cell
> >>>>>>>>>>> pic
> >>>>>>>>>>> to Home Depot and they will match the price +10%. :-)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Because it is not a very efficient way to save a few pennies. It would
> >>>>>>>>> have to be a very expensive item to justify the gas to make the trip to
> >>>>>>>>> another store.
> >>>>>>>> It depends, I suppose, on how far apart the stores are. Where I live
> >>>>>>>> Lowe's
> >>>>>>>> and Wal*Mart are on the same block. If I'm going to drive to one it won't
> >>>>>>>> cost much (if anything) to drive to the other. Just make sure it's
> >>>>>>>> something they both carry
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Jill
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> When did you last look at the price of gas... it costs more in fuel
> >>>>>>> just to start your automobile than the small change you may receive...
> >>>>>>> not to mention your time and effort. Like those pinheads who drive
> >>>>>>> ten miles out of their way and then the same ten miles all the way
> >>>>>>> back just to buy gas for 2¢ less a gallon. Anyone all that interested
> >>>>>>> in the small price difference for an item between stores should have
> >>>>>>> before ever leaving home checked on line. Nine times out of ten one
> >>>>>>> will find those items on line with free shipping.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I drive a very fuel-efficient car. I'm not worried about gas prices...
> >>>>>> anyone in their right mind knows it will never be 39 cents a gallon again.
> >>>>>> And I don't live on the left coast, or NYC, where *everything* costs more
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jill
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I drive a 9,000# diesel truck, but unlike a lot of folks I can actually
> >>>>> do math and determine that the 1 mile extra it takes for me to go to
> >>>>> Mal-Wart, Target, Sam's, Albertson's and Kroger all in the same trip
> >>>>> costs me $0.21 so it doesn't take much shopping savings to cover that
> >>>>> cost.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's funny... diesel is now like $3.40/gal... you can barely crank
> >>>> her over for 21¢.
> >>>
> >>> $2.999 here today at my local Exxon station, and off brands are cheaper.
> >>> That $0.21/mile is based on the Exxon price too, I could go lower with
> >>> off brand fuel, but I don't care to put off brand fuel in a $60k truck
> >>> if I can help it.
> >>
> >> Both my tractors are diesel... the larger (43 HP) uses at least 30¢
> >> worth to start and warm up enough to drive... during winter even more.
> >> It's also not wise to turn off a diesel until it's idled for a couple
> >> of minutes, that's why truckers don't turn off their rigs during pit
> >> stops. Diesels don't last long with a lot of short trips especially
> >> with a lot of turning the motor on and off. There is no way you can
> >> store hop with your beast for only 21¢.
> >
> >You really are totally stuck in the past.
> >
> >Truckers didn't turn off trucks because of old wives tale beliefs. There
> >are few legitimate reasons to idle a diesel.
>
> The reason being discussed for idling rather than making a lot of
> starts and stops and/or sudden stops is to save the engine from
> fouling that can cause serious damage.

Not relevant to current generation diesel engines.

> Truckers also leave their rigs
> idling because they are hauling a reefer...

This hasn't been relevant in ages. Refers all have their own independent
refrigeration engines that start and stop as needed. This is why refer
trailers have their own diesel fuel tanks underneath. They do not
require anything from a tractor for their refrigeration and will happily
operate parked disconnected from everything, at least as long as their
fuel tank is kept filled.

> and to minimize that the
> motor may not restart in cold weather. In cold weather I need to plug
> in my oil pan heater, and add anti-gel to the fuel.

This is also not an issue with current generation diesel engines, that
start in cold weather vastly better than the older generation of
diesels. Diesel duel is seasonally adjusted and anti-gel additive isn't
generally need if the fuel was purchased in the season. Private vehicles
and ag. equipment has more of an issue with this since the fuel has a
greater chance of being leftover from the warmer season. Block heaters
are helpful on cold starts, however truckers won't have a cold start if
they shut off their rig for the 20 minutes of refueling. Even after a
required rest period with the engine off, the block is still relatively
warm in all but the harshest northern climates.

>
> >Maybe you have heard of two large package delivery companies named FedX
> >and UPS? They operate more than a few diesel powered delivery trucks and
> >the official policy of both is that drivers must turn off the engines as
> >soon as the vehicle is stopped. A typical route truck driver likely does
> >say 10 deliveries/hour so that is at least 80 stop/start
> >cycles/truck/day with no ill effects over hundreds (likely more)) of
> >millions of fleet operational miles (maybe you should give them a call
> >to let them know what they are doing wrong)
>
> I get UPS, FedX, etal deliveries at least once every week... the
> driver never shuts off his motor, and I know it's diesel because a few
> times a year I meet them at the only diesel pump for 15 miles.

The UPS and FedEx drivers in my area do indeed shut off the engine, even
for the few minutes it takes to walk a package to my door.

>
> >Then not to mention many states have banned idling diesels. Your state
> >did it 8 years ago:
> >
> >http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/air_pdf/diesel.pdf
>
> Your reading comprehension sucks big time, I said " idled for a
> *couple* of minutes". On my planet a couple means TWO. And you know
> nothing about diesel engines proven by how you missed the entire point
> about diesel mechanics and leapt all the way to pollution. In any
> event drivers don't need two hours to eat lunch and visit the head.
> And we are talking passenger and agri vehicles, not over the road
> hauling... get with the program.

Do some research on the new generation of diesel engines that began
appearing in light to medium duty vehicles around 2007. There was a
dramatic change in technology over the previous diesel engines.

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 12:25:10 -0600, Omelet >
wrote:

> In article >,
> sf > wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 24 Nov 2010 09:45:11 -0500, "Jean B." > wrote:
> >
> > > As to that last... ?
> >
> > He's a conspiracy theorist and doesn't believe people can make up
> > their minds independently based on facts.
>
> The thing is, bashing Wal-mart is popular. I have yet to see anyone
> post cites to prove they are bad employers, rip off their vendors or rip
> off the customer.
>
> Granted, I did get ripped off... once. But all I had to do was drive all
> the way back across town to get a refund on a used and dirty product
> that they restocked without checking it. I chose to wash and use the
> damned thing instead 'cause I was just plain tired after a very busy
> night at work.
>
> My fault, not entirely theirs... even tho' they should have checked the
> damned thing before restocking it! (for the record, it was a very nice
> double hot plate that some asshole had used for a pot of beans and there
> was a dried ring of spilled over bean juice around the sealed element).
>
> But that's just one incident. It does not make them an evil empire. It
> just means that they made the mistake of hiring one lazy assed employee
> and that happens everywhere!

Plenty of facts have been posted here and given on any (real) news
channel you want to name. Those who are inclined not to believe them
will never believe it no matter how many facts are on the table and no
matter how much data backs up what they say. I am not going to any
trouble to find or repeat them for those who have managed to miss it
so far. Believe what you want to believe. I don't care; but I'm also
not going to support Walmart. What's sad is that Walmart is getting
rich on the backs of people who are too poor to object. It's modern
day slavery.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:15:11 -0600, Omelet >
wrote:

> In article >,
> Ema Nymton > wrote:
>
> > On 11/23/2010 6:13 PM, Dan Abel wrote:
> >
> > About 2 miles from where I live, there is a daycare center, my dentist
> > office and the vet's office, all of these people wear scrubs. When I see
> > someone wearing scrubs, I have no idea where they work.
> >
> > Becca
>
> Does it really matter?
>
> Would y'all rather live without those that do public service?
>
> Do it all yourself then.

She was just pointing out that more people than those in the medical
profession wear scrubs.

--

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:32:21 -0600, Omelet wrote:


> I still firmly believe that most of the current POWM photos are staged.
> Some people are just exhibitionists. ;-)

Haven't looked at the photos on the site in a while, so I'll take your
word for it about the staged thing. But when last I looked, most of the
photos I saw were taken from behind the shoppers or from an angle where
they couldn't possibly have seen the photographer without turning their
heads in the right direction... Therefore, unless they had 'eyes in the
back of their heads', those shoppers were being photographed without their
knowledge.

Heh. I have to wonder about some of the photos that *didn't* make it to
the site... because I'm pretty sure there must have been the odd
photographer who was "caught in the act" by an unimpressed shopper - and
ended up in hospital with a broken nose (or worse).

As for exhibitionists - sure, there are plenty on the planet - but how or
why shopping in a WalMart store would give them a bigger 'kick' than
anywhere else also escapes me. It's all rather odd, IMHO.

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Thu, 25 Nov 2010 15:08:40 -0600, Ema Nymton wrote:

> About 2 miles from where I live, there is a daycare center, my dentist
> office and the vet's office, all of these people wear scrubs. When I see
> someone wearing scrubs, I have no idea where they work.

Only place I've seen people wearing scrubs in this neck of the woods is
when they're on duty in hospitals, clinics - and my dentist's office. I've
never noticed anybody wearing scrubs in any of the supermarkets I go to.
But then again, I go there to shop not - to suss out who's wearing what,
so maybe I just missed it.

BTW, the vets we take our pets to don't wear scrubs unless they're
actually operating; for normal consultations they're usually wearing
riding gear. (It's quite a 'horsey' area where I live).

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy